Nullada vs. Civil Registrar of Manila

Facts:

Petitioner Marlyn Monton Nullada and respondent Akira Ito, a Japanese national, were married on July 29, 1997 in Katsushika-ku, Tokyo, Japan; their marriage was registered with the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo and recorded with the Local Civil Registry of Manila. The marriage produced a child, Shin Ito. The spouses later obtained a divorce in Japan by agreement, and a Divorce Certificate dated November 16, 2009 issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines (based on the Official Family Register) and an Acceptance Certificate by the Head of Katsushika-ku were presented in the records.

In 2014 Marlyn filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Manila, a petition under Rule 108 and Article 26 of the Family Code for recognition/registration of the foreign divorce, cancellation of the Manila marriage entry, and declaration that she has the capacity to remarry. The petition was set for hearing, summons were issued (including by publication), and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered an appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor of Manila to assist. At trial Marlyn offered documentary evidence (Report of Marriage and authentication, Divorce Certificate and authentication, Acceptance Certificate, excerpts of the Japanese Civil Code, and her judicial affidavit). Akira did not answer and the Republic did not present evidence.

On January 21, 2016 the RTC denied the petition, reasoning that Article 17 of the New Civil Code embodies a policy of non-recognition of divorce and that, under the RTC’s reading, Article 26(2) of the Family Code would not apply where the Filipino spouse actively participated in or agreed to the foreign divorce; thus Marlyn could not invoke the remedial purpose of Article 26. Marlyn’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2016. She filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, contending that Article 26(2) applies regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign divorce.

The Supreme Court allowed direct recourse as the case presented a pure question of law and relied on the Court’s recent decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018). The Court found the RTC’s rejection of recognition because the divorce was mutually obtained to be inconsistent with Manalo’s holding that Article 26(2) does not require that the alien spouse be the initiator of the foreign divorce. However, the Court also held that proof of the foreign (Jap...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to a Filipino spouse who jointly obtained or who initiated a foreign divorce, i.e., must the foreign spouse have been the one who obtained the divorce for the Filipino spouse to gain capacity to remarry?
• Was the foreign law of Japan on divorce sufficiently proved in the RTC proceedings so as to permit recognition ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)